What do you mean with that, I thought the only way to have a trade deficit was to buy more from abroad than locally. So if we have a trade deficit it doesn't seem like we are having a problem affording stuff.
Short term vs long term viewpoint. If we have a trade deficit today- and it's large enough- it means that comparative advantage rules have broken down, and that the nation that no longer produces ANYTHING will start losing high-paying manufacturing jobs (gee, kind of like what we've been doing for 40 years now?). As those high-paying jobs fall off, more and more Americans are living on what are basically substinence level wages (albeit, substinence level in America is 40x what it is in China, especially after the housing market boom). If we're earning substinence level wages, that means no money for toys. Which explains why my previous 2 year upgrade cycle has been broken for the past 4 years.
I think the key contention is that you think the philosophy of science steps on other other philosophies toes.
Only when Atheists force it to.
Strictly speaking it does not. No part in evolution specifies the existence or non existence of a creator.
Except when, of course, scientists use it to teach the non-existence of a creator.
The only problem is ID as a theory isn't scientific. You can feel free to discuss it in regard to metaphysics religion etc.. but has no place in science.
Agreed- but the point is that atheistic evolution as a theory ALSO isn't scientific. You can feel free to discuss it in regard to metaphysics, religion, etc, but it has no place in a biology classroom.
The philosophy does not claim to have any answer or any interests in a creator although the under lying assumption is that the simplest case without a need for a divine external agent. This in itself does not say there is or is not only that we assume if there is one he set in motion and does not violate natural laws to make thing happen.
Ah, the Roman Catholic definition of a miracle fits then, since it is assumed that God would not violate his own laws. But that underlying assumption of what is the "simplest case" sounds rather complex, and faith based. Underlying assumptions belong in the realm of faith, not the realm of science.
Individuals in the science camp attack individuals int he "there is a god" camp because the assumption that a divine entity interferes would make science useless. As anything we don't know would be attributed to the divine which isn't useful (god of the gaps as you are actually describing him. you attribute him to quantum level probability which is that fuzzy area where the lay men know nothing. What happens if we find out the hidden variable theory was right and it's all deterministic right Really want to peg a faith on that?) The only way any to have constructive research is to assume either there is no god or if there is a god he does things hands off.
I have no problem with a deterministic universe- of which my subset is indeterministic due to my lack of knowledge. To me, an indeterministic universe (either caused by an irrational God such as some of the Islamic descriptions of Allah, or "randomness") is useless to try to describe- because you never know when something you have previously described is going to change.
As far as we can see the universe on almost all scales is deterministic while on scales smaller then atoms they behave counter intuitively in a probabilistic way how ever the word "random" is mis used. It describes a specific sets of distributions an not "anything you can imagine". I strongly recommend you take some science course in physics before you start spouting off about it. You vehement insistence of the equality of ID and Science in generally can only be summed up as ignorant. You can assume there is no god or there is a god but you cannot assume he takes a hand one approach changing the rules as he sees fit without invalidating all science. I am not a positivist. There are assumption int he philosophy and I'm agnostic about god. I am aware science cannot answer that question no matter how hard Dawkins or ID'ists wish it can.
Then you're better off than most of the atheists out there- whose insistence on an unintelligent universe would indicate an indeterministic universe on the quantum level- thus destroying the determinism on higher scales.
All theories in science are requires to be falsifiable or they are not scientific theories.
Good start- but scientists themselves are not scientific.
For instance string theory is on the bubble since it is impossible to find a situation it does not apply to by changing the variables around. The scientific nature of string theory is a hot topic at the moment. But generally General relativity, sub atomic particle theory, etc.. are all falsifiable.That is if any of their predictions are not true it must be revised. You don't seem to grasp this that ALL SCIENTIFIC THEORIES MUST BE FALSIFIABLE. Quantum physics is no exception. If light could not propagate through a vacuum this would falsify the theories about photons. If Electrons could be found at any orbital that would falsify the current atomic model.
Once again, I'm focusing VERY narrowly on one thing: Is the universe purposeful and planned, or is it random? Our point of view does not allow us to answer that question- it's a huge leap of faith either way.
Mutations are not random. The mechanism is deterministic but with such a huge number of variables that it is useful to label it "random" just as a dice roll is deterministic but it's mathematically useful to classify it as a random event due to the number of variables. Apparently yourself and the GP don't understand this.
I am the GP, so you can drop the qualification. Either the universe is deterministic- in which case we might as well believe in a determining being- or it isn't. It's a binary- either or. Therefore your "mathematically useful" classification is nothing more than a lie to protect your own ego.
Mutations are simple changes int he code. Most of them are either nonsensical or fatal. A few change your phenotype without killing you and depending on the situation may be beneficial. No design or purpose but there is a process of selection. If there was no mutation it would falsify the prediction of mutations in modern evolutionary theory.
We actually don't know enough to say that something is "beneficial" or not. We don't know enough to say whether there is a "design or purpose" or not. Claiming that we know that a given mutation is "nonsensical" just because it is "fatal" is an attempt to bring certainty to something that has no certainty.
Eh? The purpose of the theories is to model and explain behaviors. Conclusions? ie there is no god? Science has no interest in this since God is more of a question to do with other branches of philosophy. If you falsify a scientific theory you bring all of it's predictions and implications into question.
Then science should stop trying to answer the question with lies such as labeling perfectly deterministic processes as random. Doing so yields a non-falsifiable conclusion, which brings the entire philosophy of the scientific method itself into question. Claiming a conclusion where there is none is what the extremes of evolution and Intelligent Design do; I would say that those extremes need to be avoided. It's ok if that leads to an answer of "I don't know".
Quantum physics is not the "what the $$##" type of stuff. It's mostly to do with sub atomic behavior. It become deterministic on the atomic level. You really need some remedial Science courses. Start with gr 9 physics. IT seems thats where you left off.
You really don't get it. I'm talking metaphysics here. Either the universe is deterministic (but possibly unknowable to finite beings such as ourselves), even on a quantum level, or it isn't. You can't have it both ways. Randomness either exists or it doesn't- and since randomness is utterly indistinguishable from myth, both are a leap of faith that are beyond science and do not belong in a scientific classroom.
I don't know what your point is, but my original response was to Address the GP's assertion that parts of genetic theory were not falsifiable.
It isn't parts of genetic theory that aren't falsifiable, it's parts of quantum physics that aren't falsifiable. The physics just happens to be the cause of the only difference between Evolution and Intelligent Design.
Generally disproving any of the implications of Evolution and the related theories would then falsify those parts.
Not when you're talking about the difference between Evolution and Intelligent Design, both of which REQUIRE that those parts be both falsifiable and true.
One of them is the occurrence of random mutations (point mutations, frame shift, substitution etc..).
It isn't the existence of the mutations that is the problem. It's the existence of the randomness that is the problem. You see, random events and events in a plan that is beyond human understanding are completely indistinguishable from one another.
If you found mutations didn't happen then indeed it would refute parts of evolution.
The mutations happening have nothing to do with the purposefulness of the mutations.
All scientific theories are falsifiable by design and definition.
Yes, but the conclusions from those theories are not.
The GP did not think so and hung this assertion on his idea of the word "random".
Thus taking it out of the realm of biology, and squarely in the realm of quantum physics.
Original post: Now, do they accept that "Intelligent Design" does not belong in science class? Yes/No?
If "Yes", how would they falsify it do demonstrate that it IS scientific?
My comment: As to your last sentence, I think you tripped on your own double negative.
Your comment:There is no double negative in the sentence your quoted. Each negative is attached to a different verb.
True, I should have quoted the section that comment was based on. If they accept that Intelligent Design DOES NOT belong in science class, then what do they need to falsify? If the answer is NO to that question, then they need to show how Intelligent Design can be falsified.
Replace "Intelligent Design" with a "random, purposeless mutation", and you get the other side of the equation.
I can live with both being excluded from science class- because science shouldn't be about absolute knowledge, but rather relative knowledge, and "I don't Know" is an acceptable answer.
Likewise, gravity is indistinguishable from angels, but there's reasonably broad consensus as to which model is more useful.
Useful how? And to whom? Under what constraints? That's the problem, you see- the word "useful" is completely subjective. Though you've got the wrong allegory- sin is equal to weight, not angels.
You could show that mutations follow a strict pattern or are planned by some entity.
An unknown plan is entirely indistinguishable from a random pattern.
Exactly. The world revealed by careful critical thinking and demonstrated through successful practical application is the same as the world described by a myth. And the fact that the myth provides a little more comfort to some people means that it's worthy of equal attention.
A purposeless universe is also a myth- and the fact that the myth provides a little more comfort to some people means it is worthy of equal attention? But that's not what you said, is it. You said non-falsifiable data is not worthy of ANY attention whatsoever.
Besides, the "purpose" thing doesn't really work in a religious context either - what is Gods' purpose, and why is that purpose important?
In a religious context, the purpose is important from an emotional standpoint- it's a way to get large populations to withstand evil. The purpose need not be known, only the idea that there is a purpose.
Or did you think religions only existed to give us stories to tell around the campfire? All religions come down to one thing- enabling large groups of people to live together without killing each other.
Right, because we should only pay people for their time, not for their productivity. Effort, education, talent, strength, accuracy, speed, intelligence, trustworthiness, experience, dedication and efficiency should count for nothing.
The rest of those goes to personal satisfaction- to put it in terms my 4-year-old would understand, it's the difference between being a Really Useful Engine and a Very Naughty Engine.
The rewards of all of that rebound upon society as a whole.
Usually people get paid more because they do things that are more valuable in some way - more difficult, requiring rarer abilities, or because you have to trust them more. Sometimes things don't work that way, but "an hour is an hour" is way overboard in the other direction.
In recent years, that has become so incredibly untrue that perhaps we need such a rebound overboard in the other direction. Oh, and BTW, I don't believe in rare abilities. Genetics does not impact education- environment is the predictor of education.
No. You have a very poor understanding of quantum physics. There is no way, even theoretically, that nuclear decay can be traced back to any external cause. It is true randomness, and to look for "cause" is not possible. Very likely, the whole question of causality is meaningless in such a case.
Only if you have a "religious" belief in uncaused events. There is no difference between "true randomness" and an appeal to deity.
Actually, no it isn't. That's not considered a decay so much as a reaction. A nuclear decay is a wholly internal process, whose timing is wholly governed by quantum uncertainty.
Depends on whether you believe in uncaused causes. Which is a SUBJECTIVE belief, unprovable by science.
And at any rate there is no such thing as perfect knowledge; a perfect knowledge of the position of an incoming particle precludes any knowledge at all of its velocity, and so we cannot ever reliably predict the timing of any decay it may trigger.
For human beings, that's true. But it would be complete hubris to assume that it is true for anything inhuman and unknowable. Thus your randomization is limited to only the human species- once again subjective.
Not that any of this affects a hypothetical god, mind; he can presumably do as he pleases, Heisenberg or no.
Exactly. Thus, there is no objective difference between a divine plan and random action- and claiming that something is caused by random action is equally as subjective and mythological as belief in His Flying Noodleness.
Actually the theory that DNA has random mutations can be falsified. If you have an experiment where have multi generations of organism with exactly the same genotype/phenotype without ever having one arise of a phenotype/genotype different then that which was already in the pool and if it occurred always and in every experiment then that would disprove random mutations as a theory.
And this would differ from a divine plan unknowable to the researchers exactly how?
Nuclear decay is objective proof of randomness. So is quantum electrodynamics.
Not to somebody who believes that the ENTIRE UNIVERSE was created with a purpose in mind. Nuclear decay can, theoretically, be traced back to the Big Bang if you had perfect knowledge, for instance- it's just a matter of radical electrons hitting nuclei after all, and if you had a time machine you could trace each one back until your time machine itself no longer worked. Same with quantum electrodynamics. Random events are completely indistinguishable from planned events under the rule that we're not allowed to know the plan.
If it cannot be falsified it is not Science and does NOT belong in a science class. At all. Not even to "teach the controversy". Period. End of statement.
And since the concept of random mutation cannot be falsified, I guess it doesn't belong in a science class according to you? After all, it's just the same belief as a belief in God, it's just the belief that the universe doesn't have a purpose. Can't be falsified EITHER way.
As to your last sentence, I think you tripped on your own double negative.
Where I say it's a waste of time because modern believers in Intelligent Design already believe in every piece of concrete objective evidence that "evolution" has to offer. And there's no way to prove randomness to somebody who doesn't already believe in it.
This is new? Yes, of course no child left behind means nobody can get ahead- but it didn't start with no child left behind. EVERY person I know who tested with an IQ greater than 105 had this problem in high school, and to a lesser extent in grade school (but only because I went to a rural grade school with extremely small class sizes).
So the cost of labour is the entire cost of manufacturing is it? No capital costs, no raw materials costs, no transport costs?
Capital costs, raw materials cost, and transport costs are often highly subsidized by the country of origin in an effort to attract new manufacturing. Countries that don't, get bypassed in the search for cheap labor.
If the cost of goods purchased is decreasing, how can there be inflation?
It isn't. It's a trick- they merely sell you smaller amounts.
Really!!! You have a magic process for producing oil above ground for $5 a barrel!!!!???? Please tell me what it is, I'm all ears.
This was front page slashdot just a couple of days ago- but I like my writeup at technocrat better. E-coli and yard waste- to the tune of 3% of America's land mass (swampland mainly) being used to create feedstock for the bacteria refineries.
Yes, but who would buy your overpriced commodities? Oh, that's right, you won't be trading with other parts of the world, so you are just going to take the increase in the cost of goods on the chin, but that's alright because you have 'good paying jobs' to pay for it.
Exactly. The people who really need to take it on the chin is the C-level executives- their lifestyle can't continue to be supported. And we need to return to anything over a 10% profit margin being called profiteering and punished by the FTC, like it used to be.
Are you talking about a profit margin or markup on the cost of goods? Walmart has 100-200% markup, but a 1-2% profit margin. Sorry, when you said 100-200% margin, I assumed you were talking about the markup, because Walmart certainly does not have a 100-200% profit margin, but they certainly do have a 100-200% markup.
Walmart would have a 200% profit margin if their executives were earning the same salary as the lowest associate. I consider executive salaries as a part of profit.
It is neither a religion nor a science. Economics is a collection of speculative theories (an Art, if you will), and business is an evolving methodology (an intellectual technology).
Art is religion. A collection of beliefs with no more fact behind them than any other myth. Same with methodologies.
Socialism has succeeded at times in Sweden, Norway, Britain,Australia and even Canada. Not raving-foam-at-the-mouth socialism, but quiet pragmatic socialism that most Americans don't quite seem to be able to comprehend.
I confess that I haven't messed with you in MONTHS! Ah, but too bad, I run my own ISP (sort of, if you consider a mailserver and a web server for friends and family to be an ISP).
Oh, and BTW, just to mess with your mind: The reason the rich in La Jolla aren't selling you marijuana isn't a conspiracy against you. They don't raise it themselves because unlike you, they aren't addicts.
No, I don't think they did, I KNOW they did. Almost every consumer item I buy has come down (in real terms, adjusted for inflation) by a factor of 5-10, from the change in the terms of trade, due entirely to outsourcing labour intensive industries to countries with a cheap labour pool.
Actually, that proves it- since the change in cost of manufacturing is actually a factor of 100-1000, not 5-10. (Ohio Arts is a good example of this- their wages went from $19/hr with benefits to.24/hr with no benefits). Like I said, the REAL cost reductions go straight to the bottom line, NOT to consumers.
The rich and powerful are in the arms business as well, so I don't think you will succeed, but by all means, best of luck!
Soap Box first. Ballot box next. Ammo box last. We're still in the Soap Box stage, and if enough people realize they've been taken for a ride, we'll never need the Ammo box.
No, the US Dollar has been losing it's value for 40 years, not it's purchasing power. The two are completely different things. The reason the US Dollar has been losing it's value is because it has been mortgaged for future generations to pay off through the issuing of government debt. It's purchasing power is maintained by your military, by enforcing/maintaining the terms of trade. Modern economies need oil, and (almost) all oil is sold in US$, along with many other commodities that are no longer produced in the US. It's really quite complex, and whole books have been written on how this works, perhaps you could read one?
The current terms of trade mean that Americans earn less money every year, in relation to inflation. How is that maintaining the purchasing power? Plus, oil need not come out of the ground anymore, so that analysis is rather outdated. Add to that the fact that if those commodities WERE produced in the United States, Americans would have good paying jobs again, the entire "free trade" model fails to be worth a single American life, let alone sending the military around the world on messes like Iraq.
Retails margins are always 100-200%, regardless of the country that the product is manufactured in.
Bullshit. Back in the 1980s, I worked retail as my first job, and EVERYTHING in the store assumed a 10% margin. If we were able to do that then, we should be able to do that now.
100% markup on $1 (made in china) is $2, on $10 (made in usa) it is $20. Perhaps if you understood the first thing about economics or business, it would assist you in your quest to destroy those who profit from it.
And perhaps if you knew anything about history, you'd know that what is "economics or business" is nothing more than fungible religion, not science.
You thought wrong. Where ever socialism has succeeded in the world was because it was pragmatic, not idealistic.
That's the beauty of a corporation limited risk. The execs and stockholders at most lose the value of their share in the company (no debt slavery). If the bank decides to call your debt, the liquidation of assets will most likely not cover what is owed, leaving the bank out in the cold.
It therefore is in the interest of the creditor to do what they can to help the debtor when extremely large sums of money are involved.
What's to stop the bank from paying a bunch of lobbyists to change corporation limited risk in the law? Better yet, what's to stop China from simply paying for the "campaign contributions" of every Republican and Democrat in Washington DC to reverse that?
Stronger = more efficient, more goods & services, more people serviced.
In that case, the US is significantly weaker- since all the goods and services are going to the top.1%, leaving the bottom 50% in the dust.
Dependence is not a bad thing, otherwise I wouldn't have a computer, I would be out in the fields 12 hours a day growing food to support me and my family.
Dependence on foreign nations who don't give a shit about you or your family is a bad thing.
Economics exists because we are better off trading than trying to be self-sufficient. Yes the system is more complex, but it also provides more.
Economics is a religion, not a science- it's based on a bunch of unproven beliefs.
The words of an idealistic tyrant - hundreds of millions have died due to such hubris
On the flip side of that coin, can you afford to pay 20-50% more for your consumer goods? According to the US census bureau: In 2005, 37.0 million people were in poverty. I guess your plan involves re-employing those people in all of the jobs that went overseas when manufacturers outsourced?
Yes- that's the entire point. The reason these people are in poverty is because the traditional "high paying American manufacturing jobs" simply aren't available.
But that would mean that the US doesn't get to screw third world countries with one-sided trading agreements.
Also good. You don't really think those cheap prices ACTUALLY made it to the consumer, did you? Of course not- they ended up as profit for the top.1% of Americans- who now earn as much as the bottom 50% combined.
I love your idealism, but really, do you think that the US rich and powerful are going to give up their free ride just like that?
Of course not. First we have to take back our democracy!
Do you think the US consumer is going to give up the purchasing power of the US dollar without complaint?
The US Dollar has been losing purchasing power for 40 years now. Like I said, the cheap prices don't make it to the consumer level, not really- Wal*Mart's margin is often 100-200%, and other "discount stores" are similar or worse.
Yes, but that is NEVER going to happen, so it is rather pointless planning for, or thinking about a world in which it does. The strong prey upon the weak, they can't help themselves, it's in the DNA. Universal equality will never be achieved, because it would take an enormous authoritarian apparatus to enforce it.
So let's build an enormous authoritarian apparatus. If that's what it takes, it's worth it.
Misguided idealism is what gives Socialism a bad name.
Oh, and I thought it was the con artists who gave socialism a bad name.
It's pretty simple, really. Leftistas hate Bush because Bush stands for being a man, facing problems and tackling them with force and vigor.
I wish he did at least that- the way I see it the current attempt in Iraq is the stupidest, most wimpy limp-wristed effort at war ever! When are we going to see the mass murders in retaliation for killing the occupiers start?
Reagan never entirely won me over- but I AM forced to admit, after the last 16 years, that at least he knew how to actually WIN a war. Suddenly even the Iran-Contra debacle looks like good government in comparison to the current lot. Maybe I do have more in common with the GI generation than those bumbling baby boomers after all....
I guess what I'm getting at is that I'm inclined to believe the article which claims the company is making life better for the Chinese.
I believe it too- but that's kind of like saying Castro was better for the average Cuban than Batista- when you're all the way down there's no place to go but up.
Slashdot Mirror
What do you mean with that, I thought the only way to have a trade deficit was to buy more from abroad than locally. So if we have a trade deficit it doesn't seem like we are having a problem affording stuff.
Short term vs long term viewpoint. If we have a trade deficit today- and it's large enough- it means that comparative advantage rules have broken down, and that the nation that no longer produces ANYTHING will start losing high-paying manufacturing jobs (gee, kind of like what we've been doing for 40 years now?). As those high-paying jobs fall off, more and more Americans are living on what are basically substinence level wages (albeit, substinence level in America is 40x what it is in China, especially after the housing market boom). If we're earning substinence level wages, that means no money for toys. Which explains why my previous 2 year upgrade cycle has been broken for the past 4 years.
I think the key contention is that you think the philosophy of science steps on other other philosophies toes.
Only when Atheists force it to.
Strictly speaking it does not. No part in evolution specifies the existence or non existence of a creator.
Except when, of course, scientists use it to teach the non-existence of a creator.
The only problem is ID as a theory isn't scientific. You can feel free to discuss it in regard to metaphysics religion etc.. but has no place in science.
Agreed- but the point is that atheistic evolution as a theory ALSO isn't scientific. You can feel free to discuss it in regard to metaphysics, religion, etc, but it has no place in a biology classroom.
The philosophy does not claim to have any answer or any interests in a creator although the under lying assumption is that the simplest case without a need for a divine external agent. This in itself does not say there is or is not only that we assume if there is one he set in motion and does not violate natural laws to make thing happen.
Ah, the Roman Catholic definition of a miracle fits then, since it is assumed that God would not violate his own laws. But that underlying assumption of what is the "simplest case" sounds rather complex, and faith based. Underlying assumptions belong in the realm of faith, not the realm of science.
Individuals in the science camp attack individuals int he "there is a god" camp because the assumption that a divine entity interferes would make science useless. As anything we don't know would be attributed to the divine which isn't useful (god of the gaps as you are actually describing him. you attribute him to quantum level probability which is that fuzzy area where the lay men know nothing. What happens if we find out the hidden variable theory was right and it's all deterministic right Really want to peg a faith on that?) The only way any to have constructive research is to assume either there is no god or if there is a god he does things hands off.
I have no problem with a deterministic universe- of which my subset is indeterministic due to my lack of knowledge. To me, an indeterministic universe (either caused by an irrational God such as some of the Islamic descriptions of Allah, or "randomness") is useless to try to describe- because you never know when something you have previously described is going to change.
As far as we can see the universe on almost all scales is deterministic while on scales smaller then atoms they behave counter intuitively in a probabilistic way how ever the word "random" is mis used. It describes a specific sets of distributions an not "anything you can imagine". I strongly recommend you take some science course in physics before you start spouting off about it. You vehement insistence of the equality of ID and Science in generally can only be summed up as ignorant. You can assume there is no god or there is a god but you cannot assume he takes a hand one approach changing the rules as he sees fit without invalidating all science. I am not a positivist. There are assumption int he philosophy and I'm agnostic about god. I am aware science cannot answer that question no matter how hard Dawkins or ID'ists wish it can.
Then you're better off than most of the atheists out there- whose insistence on an unintelligent universe would indicate an indeterministic universe on the quantum level- thus destroying the determinism on higher scales.
All theories in science are requires to be falsifiable or they are not scientific theories.
.That is if any of their predictions are not true it must be revised. You don't seem to grasp this that ALL SCIENTIFIC THEORIES MUST BE FALSIFIABLE. Quantum physics is no exception. If light could not propagate through a vacuum this would falsify the theories about photons. If Electrons could be found at any orbital that would falsify the current atomic model.
Good start- but scientists themselves are not scientific.
For instance string theory is on the bubble since it is impossible to find a situation it does not apply to by changing the variables around. The scientific nature of string theory is a hot topic at the moment. But generally General relativity, sub atomic particle theory, etc.. are all falsifiable
Once again, I'm focusing VERY narrowly on one thing: Is the universe purposeful and planned, or is it random? Our point of view does not allow us to answer that question- it's a huge leap of faith either way.
Mutations are not random. The mechanism is deterministic but with such a huge number of variables that it is useful to label it "random" just as a dice roll is deterministic but it's mathematically useful to classify it as a random event due to the number of variables. Apparently yourself and the GP don't understand this.
I am the GP, so you can drop the qualification. Either the universe is deterministic- in which case we might as well believe in a determining being- or it isn't. It's a binary- either or. Therefore your "mathematically useful" classification is nothing more than a lie to protect your own ego.
Mutations are simple changes int he code. Most of them are either nonsensical or fatal. A few change your phenotype without killing you and depending on the situation may be beneficial. No design or purpose but there is a process of selection. If there was no mutation it would falsify the prediction of mutations in modern evolutionary theory.
We actually don't know enough to say that something is "beneficial" or not. We don't know enough to say whether there is a "design or purpose" or not. Claiming that we know that a given mutation is "nonsensical" just because it is "fatal" is an attempt to bring certainty to something that has no certainty.
Eh? The purpose of the theories is to model and explain behaviors. Conclusions? ie there is no god? Science has no interest in this since God is more of a question to do with other branches of philosophy. If you falsify a scientific theory you bring all of it's predictions and implications into question.
Then science should stop trying to answer the question with lies such as labeling perfectly deterministic processes as random. Doing so yields a non-falsifiable conclusion, which brings the entire philosophy of the scientific method itself into question. Claiming a conclusion where there is none is what the extremes of evolution and Intelligent Design do; I would say that those extremes need to be avoided. It's ok if that leads to an answer of "I don't know".
Quantum physics is not the "what the $$##" type of stuff. It's mostly to do with sub atomic behavior. It become deterministic on the atomic level. You really need some remedial Science courses. Start with gr 9 physics. IT seems thats where you left off.
You really don't get it. I'm talking metaphysics here. Either the universe is deterministic (but possibly unknowable to finite beings such as ourselves), even on a quantum level, or it isn't. You can't have it both ways. Randomness either exists or it doesn't- and since randomness is utterly indistinguishable from myth, both are a leap of faith that are beyond science and do not belong in a scientific classroom.
I don't know what your point is, but my original response was to Address the GP's assertion that parts of genetic theory were not falsifiable.
It isn't parts of genetic theory that aren't falsifiable, it's parts of quantum physics that aren't falsifiable. The physics just happens to be the cause of the only difference between Evolution and Intelligent Design.
Generally disproving any of the implications of Evolution and the related theories would then falsify those parts.
Not when you're talking about the difference between Evolution and Intelligent Design, both of which REQUIRE that those parts be both falsifiable and true.
One of them is the occurrence of random mutations (point mutations, frame shift, substitution etc..).
It isn't the existence of the mutations that is the problem. It's the existence of the randomness that is the problem. You see, random events and events in a plan that is beyond human understanding are completely indistinguishable from one another.
If you found mutations didn't happen then indeed it would refute parts of evolution.
The mutations happening have nothing to do with the purposefulness of the mutations.
All scientific theories are falsifiable by design and definition.
Yes, but the conclusions from those theories are not.
The GP did not think so and hung this assertion on his idea of the word "random".
Thus taking it out of the realm of biology, and squarely in the realm of quantum physics.
Original post:
Now, do they accept that "Intelligent Design" does not belong in science class? Yes/No?
If "Yes", how would they falsify it do demonstrate that it IS scientific?
My comment:
As to your last sentence, I think you tripped on your own double negative.
Your comment:There is no double negative in the sentence your quoted. Each negative is attached to a different verb.
True, I should have quoted the section that comment was based on. If they accept that Intelligent Design DOES NOT belong in science class, then what do they need to falsify? If the answer is NO to that question, then they need to show how Intelligent Design can be falsified.
Replace "Intelligent Design" with a "random, purposeless mutation", and you get the other side of the equation.
I can live with both being excluded from science class- because science shouldn't be about absolute knowledge, but rather relative knowledge, and "I don't Know" is an acceptable answer.
Likewise, gravity is indistinguishable from angels, but there's reasonably broad consensus as to which model is more useful.
Useful how? And to whom? Under what constraints? That's the problem, you see- the word "useful" is completely subjective. Though you've got the wrong allegory- sin is equal to weight, not angels.
You could show that mutations follow a strict pattern or are planned by some entity.
An unknown plan is entirely indistinguishable from a random pattern.
Exactly. The world revealed by careful critical thinking and demonstrated through successful practical application is the same as the world described by a myth. And the fact that the myth provides a little more comfort to some people means that it's worthy of equal attention.
A purposeless universe is also a myth- and the fact that the myth provides a little more comfort to some people means it is worthy of equal attention? But that's not what you said, is it. You said non-falsifiable data is not worthy of ANY attention whatsoever.
Besides, the "purpose" thing doesn't really work in a religious context either - what is Gods' purpose, and why is that purpose important?
In a religious context, the purpose is important from an emotional standpoint- it's a way to get large populations to withstand evil. The purpose need not be known, only the idea that there is a purpose.
Or did you think religions only existed to give us stories to tell around the campfire? All religions come down to one thing- enabling large groups of people to live together without killing each other.
Right, because we should only pay people for their time, not for their productivity. Effort, education, talent, strength, accuracy, speed, intelligence, trustworthiness, experience, dedication and efficiency should count for nothing.
The rest of those goes to personal satisfaction- to put it in terms my 4-year-old would understand, it's the difference between being a Really Useful Engine and a Very Naughty Engine.
The rewards of all of that rebound upon society as a whole.
Usually people get paid more because they do things that are more valuable in some way - more difficult, requiring rarer abilities, or because you have to trust them more. Sometimes things don't work that way, but "an hour is an hour" is way overboard in the other direction.
In recent years, that has become so incredibly untrue that perhaps we need such a rebound overboard in the other direction. Oh, and BTW, I don't believe in rare abilities. Genetics does not impact education- environment is the predictor of education.
No. You have a very poor understanding of quantum physics. There is no way, even theoretically, that nuclear decay can be traced back to any external cause. It is true randomness, and to look for "cause" is not possible. Very likely, the whole question of causality is meaningless in such a case.
Only if you have a "religious" belief in uncaused events. There is no difference between "true randomness" and an appeal to deity.
Actually, no it isn't. That's not considered a decay so much as a reaction. A nuclear decay is a wholly internal process, whose timing is wholly governed by quantum uncertainty.
Depends on whether you believe in uncaused causes. Which is a SUBJECTIVE belief, unprovable by science.
And at any rate there is no such thing as perfect knowledge; a perfect knowledge of the position of an incoming particle precludes any knowledge at all of its velocity, and so we cannot ever reliably predict the timing of any decay it may trigger.
For human beings, that's true. But it would be complete hubris to assume that it is true for anything inhuman and unknowable. Thus your randomization is limited to only the human species- once again subjective.
Not that any of this affects a hypothetical god, mind; he can presumably do as he pleases, Heisenberg or no.
Exactly. Thus, there is no objective difference between a divine plan and random action- and claiming that something is caused by random action is equally as subjective and mythological as belief in His Flying Noodleness.
Actually the theory that DNA has random mutations can be falsified. If you have an experiment where have multi generations of organism with exactly the same genotype/phenotype without ever having one arise of a phenotype/genotype different then that which was already in the pool and if it occurred always and in every experiment then that would disprove random mutations as a theory.
And this would differ from a divine plan unknowable to the researchers exactly how?
Nuclear decay is objective proof of randomness. So is quantum electrodynamics.
Not to somebody who believes that the ENTIRE UNIVERSE was created with a purpose in mind. Nuclear decay can, theoretically, be traced back to the Big Bang if you had perfect knowledge, for instance- it's just a matter of radical electrons hitting nuclei after all, and if you had a time machine you could trace each one back until your time machine itself no longer worked. Same with quantum electrodynamics. Random events are completely indistinguishable from planned events under the rule that we're not allowed to know the plan.
If it cannot be falsified it is not Science and does NOT belong in a science class. At all. Not even to "teach the controversy". Period. End of statement.
And since the concept of random mutation cannot be falsified, I guess it doesn't belong in a science class according to you? After all, it's just the same belief as a belief in God, it's just the belief that the universe doesn't have a purpose. Can't be falsified EITHER way.
As to your last sentence, I think you tripped on your own double negative.
Also, I met a Mormon in college who wrote a book "Dinosaurs in the Bible"- his theory was that the Giants in the land of Magog were dinosaurs.
Where I say it's a waste of time because modern believers in Intelligent Design already believe in every piece of concrete objective evidence that "evolution" has to offer. And there's no way to prove randomness to somebody who doesn't already believe in it.
This is new? Yes, of course no child left behind means nobody can get ahead- but it didn't start with no child left behind. EVERY person I know who tested with an IQ greater than 105 had this problem in high school, and to a lesser extent in grade school (but only because I went to a rural grade school with extremely small class sizes).
So the cost of labour is the entire cost of manufacturing is it? No capital costs, no raw materials costs, no transport costs?
Capital costs, raw materials cost, and transport costs are often highly subsidized by the country of origin in an effort to attract new manufacturing. Countries that don't, get bypassed in the search for cheap labor.
If the cost of goods purchased is decreasing, how can there be inflation?
It isn't. It's a trick- they merely sell you smaller amounts.
Really!!! You have a magic process for producing oil above ground for $5 a barrel!!!!???? Please tell me what it is, I'm all ears.
This was front page slashdot just a couple of days ago- but I like my writeup at technocrat better. E-coli and yard waste- to the tune of 3% of America's land mass (swampland mainly) being used to create feedstock for the bacteria refineries.
Yes, but who would buy your overpriced commodities? Oh, that's right, you won't be trading with other parts of the world, so you are just going to take the increase in the cost of goods on the chin, but that's alright because you have 'good paying jobs' to pay for it.
Exactly. The people who really need to take it on the chin is the C-level executives- their lifestyle can't continue to be supported. And we need to return to anything over a 10% profit margin being called profiteering and punished by the FTC, like it used to be.
Are you talking about a profit margin or markup on the cost of goods? Walmart has 100-200% markup, but a 1-2% profit margin. Sorry, when you said 100-200% margin, I assumed you were talking about the markup, because Walmart certainly does not have a 100-200% profit margin, but they certainly do have a 100-200% markup.
Walmart would have a 200% profit margin if their executives were earning the same salary as the lowest associate. I consider executive salaries as a part of profit.
It is neither a religion nor a science. Economics is a collection of speculative theories (an Art, if you will), and business is an evolving methodology (an intellectual technology).
Art is religion. A collection of beliefs with no more fact behind them than any other myth. Same with methodologies.
Socialism has succeeded at times in Sweden, Norway, Britain,Australia and even Canada. Not raving-foam-at-the-mouth socialism, but quiet pragmatic socialism that most Americans don't quite seem to be able to comprehend.
Those aren't socialism- they're feudalism.
I confess that I haven't messed with you in MONTHS! Ah, but too bad, I run my own ISP (sort of, if you consider a mailserver and a web server for friends and family to be an ISP).
Oh, and BTW, just to mess with your mind: The reason the rich in La Jolla aren't selling you marijuana isn't a conspiracy against you. They don't raise it themselves because unlike you, they aren't addicts.
No, I don't think they did, I KNOW they did. Almost every consumer item I buy has come down (in real terms, adjusted for inflation) by a factor of 5-10, from the change in the terms of trade, due entirely to outsourcing labour intensive industries to countries with a cheap labour pool.
.24/hr with no benefits). Like I said, the REAL cost reductions go straight to the bottom line, NOT to consumers.
Actually, that proves it- since the change in cost of manufacturing is actually a factor of 100-1000, not 5-10. (Ohio Arts is a good example of this- their wages went from $19/hr with benefits to
The rich and powerful are in the arms business as well, so I don't think you will succeed, but by all means, best of luck!
Soap Box first. Ballot box next. Ammo box last. We're still in the Soap Box stage, and if enough people realize they've been taken for a ride, we'll never need the Ammo box.
No, the US Dollar has been losing it's value for 40 years, not it's purchasing power. The two are completely different things. The reason the US Dollar has been losing it's value is because it has been mortgaged for future generations to pay off through the issuing of government debt. It's purchasing power is maintained by your military, by enforcing/maintaining the terms of trade. Modern economies need oil, and (almost) all oil is sold in US$, along with many other commodities that are no longer produced in the US. It's really quite complex, and whole books have been written on how this works, perhaps you could read one?
The current terms of trade mean that Americans earn less money every year, in relation to inflation. How is that maintaining the purchasing power? Plus, oil need not come out of the ground anymore, so that analysis is rather outdated. Add to that the fact that if those commodities WERE produced in the United States, Americans would have good paying jobs again, the entire "free trade" model fails to be worth a single American life, let alone sending the military around the world on messes like Iraq.
Retails margins are always 100-200%, regardless of the country that the product is manufactured in.
Bullshit. Back in the 1980s, I worked retail as my first job, and EVERYTHING in the store assumed a 10% margin. If we were able to do that then, we should be able to do that now.
100% markup on $1 (made in china) is $2, on $10 (made in usa) it is $20. Perhaps if you understood the first thing about economics or business, it would assist you in your quest to destroy those who profit from it.
And perhaps if you knew anything about history, you'd know that what is "economics or business" is nothing more than fungible religion, not science.
You thought wrong. Where ever socialism has succeeded in the world was because it was pragmatic, not idealistic.
Socialism has never succeeded- even in China.
Though I heard it was a switch. Same idea though- all it takes is one malfunctioning card flooding the LAN with bad packets to bring it all down.
That's the beauty of a corporation limited risk. The execs and stockholders at most lose the value of their share in the company (no debt slavery). If the bank decides to call your debt, the liquidation of assets will most likely not cover what is owed, leaving the bank out in the cold. It therefore is in the interest of the creditor to do what they can to help the debtor when extremely large sums of money are involved.
.1%, leaving the bottom 50% in the dust.
What's to stop the bank from paying a bunch of lobbyists to change corporation limited risk in the law? Better yet, what's to stop China from simply paying for the "campaign contributions" of every Republican and Democrat in Washington DC to reverse that?
Stronger = more efficient, more goods & services, more people serviced.
In that case, the US is significantly weaker- since all the goods and services are going to the top
Dependence is not a bad thing, otherwise I wouldn't have a computer, I would be out in the fields 12 hours a day growing food to support me and my family.
Dependence on foreign nations who don't give a shit about you or your family is a bad thing.
Economics exists because we are better off trading than trying to be self-sufficient. Yes the system is more complex, but it also provides more.
Economics is a religion, not a science- it's based on a bunch of unproven beliefs.
The words of an idealistic tyrant - hundreds of millions have died due to such hubris
As well they should for not being loyal.
On the flip side of that coin, can you afford to pay 20-50% more for your consumer goods? According to the US census bureau: In 2005, 37.0 million people were in poverty. I guess your plan involves re-employing those people in all of the jobs that went overseas when manufacturers outsourced?
.1% of Americans- who now earn as much as the bottom 50% combined.
Yes- that's the entire point. The reason these people are in poverty is because the traditional "high paying American manufacturing jobs" simply aren't available.
But that would mean that the US doesn't get to screw third world countries with one-sided trading agreements.
Also good. You don't really think those cheap prices ACTUALLY made it to the consumer, did you? Of course not- they ended up as profit for the top
I love your idealism, but really, do you think that the US rich and powerful are going to give up their free ride just like that?
Of course not. First we have to take back our democracy!
Do you think the US consumer is going to give up the purchasing power of the US dollar without complaint?
The US Dollar has been losing purchasing power for 40 years now. Like I said, the cheap prices don't make it to the consumer level, not really- Wal*Mart's margin is often 100-200%, and other "discount stores" are similar or worse.
Yes, but that is NEVER going to happen, so it is rather pointless planning for, or thinking about a world in which it does. The strong prey upon the weak, they can't help themselves, it's in the DNA. Universal equality will never be achieved, because it would take an enormous authoritarian apparatus to enforce it.
So let's build an enormous authoritarian apparatus. If that's what it takes, it's worth it.
Misguided idealism is what gives Socialism a bad name.
Oh, and I thought it was the con artists who gave socialism a bad name.
It's pretty simple, really. Leftistas hate Bush because Bush stands for being a man, facing problems and tackling them with force and vigor.
I wish he did at least that- the way I see it the current attempt in Iraq is the stupidest, most wimpy limp-wristed effort at war ever! When are we going to see the mass murders in retaliation for killing the occupiers start?
Reagan never entirely won me over- but I AM forced to admit, after the last 16 years, that at least he knew how to actually WIN a war. Suddenly even the Iran-Contra debacle looks like good government in comparison to the current lot. Maybe I do have more in common with the GI generation than those bumbling baby boomers after all....
I guess what I'm getting at is that I'm inclined to believe the article which claims the company is making life better for the Chinese.
I believe it too- but that's kind of like saying Castro was better for the average Cuban than Batista- when you're all the way down there's no place to go but up.